5.  The six applicants are: Solaris, s.r.o., a company registered in the Czech Republic, Mr Roman Minarik, a German national who was born in 1965 and lives in Wilstätt, Mr Karel Rybáček, born in 1956, Mr Tomáš Hlavnička, born in 1969, Mr Miroslav Sobotka, born in 1955 and Ms Jana Hlavničková, born in 1948, who all are Czech nationals and live in Prague. They are represented before the Court by Mr P. Zima, a lawyer practising in Prague.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
7.  The applicants were minority shareholders of Moravské naftové doly, a.s., a joint stock company incorporated under Czech law.
8.  On 28 May 2004 the general meeting of that company adopted, by vote of the main shareholder, a resolution on the winding up of the company and the transfer of all its assets to the main shareholder.
9.  The applicants received cash compensation based on the value of their shares on 1 January 2004. The amount of compensation was based on an evaluation made by an expert appointed by a court on the proposal of the main shareholder.
10.  On 31 May 2004 the applicants lodged with the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) an action to have the resolution set aside, asserting that it had been adopted contrary to the applicable law and that it violated a bilateral investment treaty and that the law on which the resolution was based was itself unconstitutional. At the same time, they informed the court administering the Companies Register about their action and asked it not to allow the entry of the winding up of the company and the transfer of all its assets to the main shareholder until the legality of the resolution had been decided by the Regional Court.
11.  On 6 April 2007 the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) terminated the proceedings holding that the winding up of the company had been already entered into the Companies Register and thus the court was required terminate the proceedings by virtue of Article 220h of the Commercial Code.
12.  On 27 June 2007 the Olomouc High Court (vrchní soud) upheld the decision.
13.  On 28 July 2009 the Supreme Court (nejvyšší soud) rejected the applicants’ appeal on points of law.
14.  The applicants lodged a constitutional appeal, which is pending.
15.  On 15 June 2004 the Regional Court approved the registration of the transfer and deletion of the company from the Companies Register. No hearing had been held before that decision, which was not served on the applicants as they did not have standing to participate in the proceedings.
16.  On 3 February 2005 the High Court rejected the applicants’ appeal contesting that decision. It ruled that since the applicants did not have standing to take part in the impugned proceedings, they were not entitled to appeal their outcome. It further held that the appeal had been lodged after the decision had become final and thus too late.
17.  On 25 July 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicants’ appeal on points of law as inadmissible. It held that an appeal on points of law, such as lodged by the applicants, was admissible only against decisions on the merits but the High Court had rejected their appeal on procedural grounds.
18.  The applicants instituted proceedings before the Regional Court for a review of the amount of the compensation provided by the main shareholder. These proceedings are pending.
19.  The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the Court’s judgment Kohlhofer and Minarik v. the Czech Republic, nos. 32921/03, 28464/04 and 5344/05, §§ 40-70, 15 October 2009.